Attention to all Gravity and Aether Researchers

[gravityblock]

The strength of gravity is proportional to the mass of the planet and inversely proportional to the square of the distance from the center of the planet's mass. The Earth's gravity field is measured as 9.82 m/s2 without anything acting on it. This means that an object dropped on Earth will increase its speed by 9.82 meters every second it falls until it hits the ground.

With the above in mind, take a look at the following simple thought experiment. How can an object that is dropped from 40,000 feet above the earth fall at the same rate of 9.82 m/s2 as an object that is dropped from 1,000 feet, when the strength of gravity is stronger near the surface of the Earth? To make this clear, the strength of gravity is weaker at 40,000 feet above the Earth than at 1,000 feet above the Earth, so each object should fall at a different rate, but this is not the case.

Since gravity is weaker at further distances from the center of the earth, then a falling object with mass must be encountering less resistance than an object that is much closer to the center of the earth while encountering a higher resistance in order for each object to have the same rate of 9.82 m/s2.

What is this resistance? This resistance strongly suggests an Aether. In the above thought experiment, we can see the Aether is more dense at the center of a mass, which offers more resistance, which overcomes the increase in the strength of gravity as you approach the center of the Earth. So, in essence, the Aether is more dense and has more resistance at 1,000 feet above the surface of the earth, and is less dense and has less resistance at 40,000 feet above the surface.

Take an object which is 1,000 feet above the Earth and add up the pressure from the Aether above it, then it is easy to see how gravity is stronger near the surface of the Earth than at 40,000 feet. At 40,000 feet, there is less pressure on an object, thus a lower strength in gravity.

How can the Aether cause an approaching object to follow a curved path? The Aether causes an object to follow a curved path in a similar way how a car is pulled in one direction when one of it's tires hit a pool of water. This is how space is curved. Time is curved due to the pressure of the Aether. At higher Aether pressures, all atoms oscillate at a slower rate, thus Time is curved. Aether does not fill the vacuum of space in large quanities, but instead is present and moves with a large mass. More to come!


GB

[Aaron]

How Does Gravity Work?

That is along the lines of what is in my gravity chapter in The Quantum Key.

There are posts in this forum that address exactly what you are talking about. Should be easy to find.

A couple of teaser vids recently were posted online about the gravity
chapter...

How Does Gravity Work? 1

How Does Gravity Work? 2

The aether is more dense towards the surface of the planet and it pushes
down because it is a displacement effect of the mass so the aether rebounds
back to where it was displaced from pushing on the mass in a downward
direction.

[gravityblock]

@Aaron,

Thanks Aaron for the "Quantum Key" and for joining this thread to kick this Aether model around! I have yet to read your book and I look forward to studying it.

Do you believe the Aether is different on Jupiter than the Aether found on the Earth? If yes, then would it be possible to create an Aether found on Jupiter here on the Earth contained inside a spacecraft, then for the spacecraft to be attracted to Jupiter at FTL?

Thanks,

GB

[Aaron]

do you have a website?

GB,

Do you have a website? I like reading other gravity concepts rooted in
Aetheric concepts.

[gravityblock]

Aaron,

I don't have a website, but please feel free to post any websites or links, in regards to gravity being rooted in the aether concepts. I hope this thread becomes a placeholder for all members here for their research into gravity and the aether.

Thanks,

GB

[wrench76]

Hello GB and others. I have just read an article by Marc J. Seifer, titled Nikola Tesla & the God Particle. I am no expert in this field by any means, but I thought this was brilliant. Apparently in 1934 Tesla says that the sun was absorbing more energy than it was radiating. Teslas' theory of gravity implies all matter is constantly absorbing ether all the time at the tachyonic speed of 1.37 times the speed of light.It also says that George Gamow writes in his book "30 Years That Shook Physics" in the 1920's,that the rate of electron spin was 1.37 times the speed of light. This constant absorption of ether is apparently what causes electrons and other elemental particles to spin and results in electromagnetism. The magazine is Atlantis Rising #83 Sept./Oct. 2010. There is much more interesting theories in there, I just can't type fast enough to get it all down. I hope this opens some doors.

Brian

[Harvey]

The value of 9.8m/s² is only applicable near the Earth's Surface.

For a more accurate value you would need to use the following formula:



which I borrowed from Gravity of Earth - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

and that page also includes this image:


Which shows that the gravitational acceleration diminishes to less than 6 m/s² at 2000 km.

But I really do like the deductive reasoning in your thought experiment even though it was hinged on a bit of supposition

Cheers!

[gravityblock]

@Harvey:

Looking at your graph, I can see a slight curve to the near linear slope. Do you think it would level off to be a horizontal line before it hit the 0 acceleration mark on the graph (Likewise for the otherside of the graph, with a vertical line. What size mass would be required for a vertical line, a black hole?)? If so, could this be a null area where the counter or opposition force is equal to the force of gravity (Similar to Lenz), and would be a good area for further research?

Thanks,

GB

[Harvey]

@Harvey:

Looking at your graph, I can see a slight curve to the near linear slope. Do you think it would level off to be a horizontal line before it hit the 0 acceleration mark on the graph (Likewise for the otherside of the graph, with a vertical line)? If so, could this be a null area where the counter or opposition force is equal to the force of gravity (Similar to Lenz), and would be a good area for further research?

Thanks,

GB

The curve is no doubt asymptotic which means it will only reach true zero at a distance of infinitity - anything less will result in some measure of gravitational acceleration even though it may be 1m / near infinite period of time.

As regards the left margin of the graph we do have a propensity to increase in gravitational acceleration the closer we are to the mass causing the acceleration. However, the graph intersects altitude zero, or impacts the ground and it is difficult to increase velocity after hitting the planet. However, you raise a very good question that even had the best of scientist pondering it - at what point does the acceleration stop? Some claimed that it will continue to increase until gravitational equilibrium is met which would be at the Earth's center. Others postulated that it would begin to decrease after passing the surface because the inverse square law demands that no force exist inside the surface. Both views are flawed because they don't properly account for mass distribution. A deep hole (7 miles IIRC) was dug in Russia and tests were done to evaluate this empirically.

It would seem that the lateral mass surrounding the hole does have some effect on the acceleration (or deceleration) but the above equation holds true. And therefore, at the center of the earth there is an equal attraction from all sides and if you are off center a force will exist to bring you into the center. Likewise, the mass from all sides is attracted to the mass on the other side of center and this is one reason many scientists believe in a solid core. Induced and natural seismic wave mapping seems to support this theory.

However I cannot help but wonder what super compressed plasma would look like to a seismic wave It is a bit counter intuitive also, because we might imagine that centrifugal force would somehow throw the heavy stuff to the outside - and it might if the planet were to spin fast enough. But in our case, above the surface, the heavy stuff sinks to the bottom and the light stuff gets pushed to the top. Below the surface it seems the same way - with lighter materials being 90% of the Earths Crust. We may not think of Iron as a lighter material, but it's atomic weight is nearly 1/4th that of Lead.

[Aaron]

fluid aether gravity

The experiments seem to show the aether definitely acts like
a gas or fluid so the walls should definitely influence the properties of the
space of the hole itself.

[gravityblock]

I have an idea, thanks to Harvey, for a gravity wheel based on the difference between the rate of acceleration with 2 objects.

According to Harvey, and I agree with what he has posted, dropping an object weighing 50 lbs. from a height of 20 feet will have more kinetic energy than another object of the same weight dropped from a height of 2000 feet after each object falls only 10 feet.

This may work on a large scale, but I'm not sure if it could be scaled down. In the next few days I will do a drawing to better illustrate this idea. A gear system that changes direction and/or a gear system that changes speed may simplify the inner workings for this concept. Please be patient, for my drawing capabilites are poor.

Thanks,

GB

[gravityblock]

Double the mass and you will double the kinetic energy. Double the speed and you will quadruple the kinetic energy. Does this mean it would take less kinetic energy to raise a mass 10 feet at twice the rate as it falls, as compared to raising it at the same rate of the object falling due to gravity?

Also, an object that is dropped from 40,000 feet will double in speed at a slower rate than an object that is dropped from 1,000 feet as seen in the graph Harvey posted (assuming each object only falls 1,000 feet). Could this be used to our advantage? I don't see why not, but I've been wrong many times before.

GB

[Aromaz]

Double the mass and you will double the kinetic energy. Double the speed and you will quadruple the kinetic energy. Does this mean it would take less kinetic energy to raise a mass 10 feet at twice the rate as it falls, as compared to raising it at the same rate of the object falling due to gravity?

Also, an object that is dropped from 40,000 feet will double in speed at a faster rate than an object that is dropped from 1000 feet as seen in the graph Harvey posted. Could this be used to our advantage? I don't see why not, but I've been wrong many times before.

GB

What energy will you use to lift the block to 40,000 feet before you can drop it?

[gravityblock]

What energy will you use to lift the block to 40,000 feet before you can drop it?

It will use the kinetic energy gained from the other weight stored in a flywheel, but will lift the weight in half the time required for it to fall. Of course it will take energy to initially start the system, but once started, it should be self-efficient. By raising the weight at double the rate, then the object moves to the weaker parts of the gravitational field faster, thus the object will experience less deacceleration from gravity than the acceleration gained from its fall. This means less energy to raise the weight, than the energy gained from the falling weight, does it not (at least according to theory and the mathematics)?

I just noticed I need to make a correction to my previous post.

GB

[Harvey]

If the mass contains quadruple the kinetic energy, then a force must have been applied to reach that velocity. Therefore an equal quantity of energy must have been put in - i.e. four times the energy. It is a matter of work:

And Force,



So we are really just moving energy between forms with potential energy being one of the forms and the higher the altitude, the higher the potential energy because the force of gravity can be applied for a greater distance.

So if we move a block from 39,000 feet to 40,000 feet we must apply a force greater than equal and opposite to that of gravity at that location and that will constitute work. We move from zero velocity at 39,000 feet to some velocity by 39,500 and then we can coast back to zero during the last 500 feet. So the dv/dt for the first 500 feet is our acceleration and the greater the force applied, the greater the dv/dt.

An interesting thing is that the kinetic energy applied to get from zero to V is given back from V to zero so technically our work nets to zero. and all the energy is stored as potential energy in the greater altitude.

Use a long (55,154 foot) lever with various mass and fulcrum positions between the two altitudes. Is there a way to get a gain from the asymmetric forces?